As some of you may have noticed, since the last 3 days there is now an orange label under my name that reads HE Community support. It is a pleasure to be able to represent the HbE community and I'm looking to give some tough fight always waving the banner of Moderation, Respect, Analysis and Rationale

In order to make this post more relevant other than stating the obvious (the orange label) I will use it as an opportunity to give some updates that you may find interesting:

Being HBE ACS does not invalidate in any way my ability to post as a user or propose suggestions. So, you will continue to see every now and then posts around analysis of our different army options and how to improve them, etc.

In terms of internal Team structure:

@Arhain is the head of ACS, that is, my boss and the boss of any other army ACS member. He does a number of tasks amongst which it includes coordination within the ACS group and enhancing communication channels with RT/BLT/ADT. He also peer reviews any community feedback document that ACS members may need to share with those mentioned teams

@Shadeseraph has now a red label under his name that reads "Advisory Board". He has explained it already in another thread, but amongst his tasks one immediate priority is to ensure that there is an improvement on the amount of information that is being shared with the community (i.e. things that are being worked on, etc.). He will still be pretty much involved in the same duties I will be in within the ACS (despite not having the official orange label) and he will be another layer of peer review to ensure the community feedback I provide is as objective and unbiased as possible

Myself. HbE ACS. Not any different than what Shade is being doing so far.

In terms of where are we now in the project:

Mid November an internal report was produced by Shade and Arhain based on the input gathered in the two Feedback threads (Issues and priorities). This is report was shared with both RT (rules team) and BLT (balance team). The result of the Rules and Balance team analysis and discussions will result in the list of updates for the army books, currently planned to happen around Christmas date.

This information will be initially shared with the ACS members. This is where ACS members have the opportunity to ask for an explanation of the changes and, if any concerns are identified, report them ahead of the official publication.

I will use this thread to give you updates on upcoming changes as long as there is something that we are told is solid for sharing.

As soon as you reply to a thread, it's watched. But otherwise, there's a row of symbols on the upper right corner of the site (bookmark, some boxes and an arrow). The bookmark should allow you to watch the thread

While there aren't any official news that can yet be detailed, i thought it may be interesting for you to know a bit more of what's happening at the moment and what are the expectations that one can have on the next update:

Who's doing what:

The Rules team have been working on the core rulebook updates as well as, for the most part of it, army composition aspects of the different armies.

In relation to the army aspects, some of the changes will come as a result of the "Top RT feedback issues" reported by the community (the list of top5) plus any other aspect in relation to army composition that they deemed appropriate of updating.

Those updates have been shared with the ACS community and this is where we are having the opportunity to ask for rationale on the changes.

On my personal experience of interacting with them this week I have to say that I am VERY impressed by the amount and quality of dedication and attention that they are giving to this activity. There may have been challenges in cross-teams communications in the past, but there's certainly been a very positive improvement and I have felt very much supported through that process.

The Balance team (BLT)are currently finalising the last bits of work on the army specific updates that are not covered by the RT. What are those? In a simplistic view: the very weak/underperforming thread should give you an idea on the most likely topics being looked at.

What to expect:

First and foremost: no big redesigns. At army specific level, this update will target the following aspects

Fix issues introduced in 1.2, mostly around army composition issues (either raised by the army community or identified by RT). Fix what makes common sense and avoid risking balance.

Do not expect all unit options that were lost to be back. There is a definite intention to limit non-visibily-identifiable unit optional upgrades and, where appropriate, a points adjustment may be considered.

Small point adjustments (generally buffs) by the BLT here and there to the most underperforming units to make them more attractive. Again, no large unit redesign envisaged at this stage .

Finally, as a personal observation:

One of the biggest takeaways I get from this is the fact that we seem to be going towards a more stablised phase. 1.2 was a bit of a rollercoaster and 1.3 is correcting some of the ripples that it caused, which is good for everyone's mental sanity. Army composition percentages should be stabilised also and that should allow more time to focus on individual issues that may not yet be addressed in this update.

Thanks for this summary, this is encouraging. Quick clarifying question, when you say the very weak/underperforming thread should give us the best idea of changes do you mean the 1.2 High Priority Issues thread?
If not, could you link to the thread you're talking about?

So? I am just not understanding what the game / community benefits from having stuff that is only wysiwyg?

What is the issue with looking at a silver helm and not knowing if it is 3+ or 2+... games are open list anyway and you also just ask you opponent and they tell you? If you see 5 dragon princes they are going to have +1A on the charge, if you see a bus they probably wont.

Sorry if i am missing something here, but i genuinely dont understand why the game is going down this route.

In my opinion this new guideline to rules design is good. Even with the ability to permanently look at opponents list, it is time consuming to verify any unit's equipment over and over again. And imagine, there are two units, with different equipment, you can't distinguish them on the field, you will always have to again and again ask your opponent which is which. And there is a lot of opportunity to cheat.

what is more time consuming, asking the opponent what stuff a unit has, or looking at a list? its clearly the latter.

Cheating surely isnt a big problem, we arnt 9 years old anymore! In any game the start is always clearly explaining which unit is which. the cassic used to be DE peg lords (the problem of multiple such characters still exists btw even if the unit side of it is looking to be eliminated).

My bottom line is that removing customisation make the game straight up lessfun.

If you have 4 units of them, 2 with 3+ AS and 2 with 2+ AS it could lead to discussions in game. Without needing to go into specifics, even at the ECT there were some issues in relation to that (not with HbE lancers, but to representativity).

It also requires significant more effort as BLT need to balance two options for a unit, not just one. That'd mean that, if every unit was to have one optional upgrade it would take double the effort to balance. In many of those cases, the extra options may not bring that much into the game, and even less flavour.

In your example above of lancers, in my opinion, having 2+ AS and 3+ AS as available options it doesn't bring that much into the game. I much rather only have one, and that this option becomes cost/efficient

Same story happened in the past with heavy armour for Citizen Spears and longbow for queen's guard. HA at old 1pt would have been autoinclude, at 2pt then LA was preferred.

The longbow also had to see an increase to 2ppm for QG to make both options available (still longbow was the preferred). Once the longbow became the default weapon then the unit came down in cost, because Longbow cost was on purposedly inflated.

While in some cases it may not be that clear cut, in general I agree with the principle of not making the game unnecessarily overcomplicated. It makes it easier also to remember other armies which you may play less often. So as long as they don't go too far i am personally Ok with it as a general principle as long as it doesn't remove different playstyles for a unit (i.e. LG losing skirmish)